Gear Check: Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS III

This post is part of my regular Gear Check series where we explore the items in my camera bag and gear closet. Subscribe to my newsletter (weekly digest or monthly highlights) to make sure you don't miss any of them! You can also find a list of all my gear in my gear guide.

In 2018 Canon launched an updated EF 400mm f/2.8 that shaved 26% off the weight of the previous version, bringing it down to a relatively svelte 2840g. Ok, that’s still quite heavy, but it’s 1KG lighter than the 400mm f/2.8 L IS II, and 2.5KG lighter than the original 400mm f/2.8 L IS.

Having spent some time with this lens now, I thought I’d offer up some initial thoughts on what can certainly be thought of as the flagship lens in the Canon EF L-Series lineup.

400mm f/2.8 L IS III compared to smaller 400mm f/4 DO IS II

The Good

This lens is not a whole lot heavier than the lightweight EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II, which is a remarkable achievement. Most of the weight savings came from a total optical overhaul which have now positioned the majority of the glass elements closer to the lens mount. With the lens barrel being that much thinner at that end of the lens, these glass elements are considerably smaller than they were when they were closer to the front in previous versions of the lens.

400mm @f/3.5, 1/2500, ISO 3200

Not only is it lighter, but with the weight concentrated at the lens mount end of the barrel, the whole thing feels much more stable and comfortable to handhold. Yes, you can easily handhold this lens for long periods of time! In fact, despite it being a touch heavier than the 400mm DO II, I actually preferred the balance of the setup, and found it just as easy to hold for long periods. I can’t underline enough how much of a game changer this weight redistribution is! I was staggered.

400mm @f/2.8, 1/640, ISO3200

The next thing that leapt out at me was the improvement of the image stabilization. On paper it’s only a one stop improvement, to 5-stops, from previous Canon super telephoto lenses, but in practice it just seemed to work much better for me. In part this might also be a knock on effect from improved weight distribution of the lens, but whatever the reason is, the result is a that I was happily nailing shots handheld at 1/50 of a second and below. It gave me real confidence using the lens unsupported.

In terms of overall image quality, it’s a given that this is as good as it gets. It’s as sharp wide open at f/2.8 as it is stopped down to any aperture. It really doesn’t get any better, although you should expect some noticeable vignetting at the widest aperture. No real surprises here, but it’s nice to know that even with a total optical overhaul, the lens designers have kept the staggering performance of the previous version, and potentially improved on it if you are really pixel peeping.

800mm @f/6.3 1/640, ISO2000

I have always loved the 400mm focal length for wildlife photography because it allows you to get a variety of different compositions when you use a 1.4x and 2x extender. With this lens you get a 400mm f/2.8, a 560mm f/4 and an 800mm f/5.6. I have used these combinations to great effect with the smaller 400mm f/4 DO IS II so I was curious to see how things would perform with the new 2.8 III.

Before getting this lens in my hands, I already knew of two professionals who sold their 600mm f/4 II lenses to switch to the new 400mm f/2.8 III based purely on its performance with extenders, and the focal range flexibility that gives you. 560mm f/4 is not hugely different to 600mm f/4 after all. And it gives you that option of using an f/2.8 aperture to gather more light if you need it.

Remember, a one stop difference in light with all other things being equal, will give you double the shutter speed! That can easily be the difference between a sharp shot and a blurry mess when you’re working with skittish wildlife in low light, or at a sporting event under fluorescent or LED lighting.

400mm @f/2.8, ISO3200, 1/1000

So how did the extenders perform?

With the 1.4x extender I got pretty much the results I was expecting, it’s incredibly sharp and autofocus is lightning fast under tough conditions. But as I said, I was expecting this because I have already been accustomed to sharp images from the 400mm DO IS II with the 1.4x extender. The 400mm f/2.8 III was just as sharp, and the autofocus was definitely faster to lock on, and more accurate (less front or back focussed shots).

What really surprised me was the autofocus speed with the 2x extender. On the 400mm f/4 DO IS II I could get sharp shots with the 2x extender in place, but I would never trust it with anything that needed to be tracked using AI servo focusing. It just didn’t cut it. With the 2x on the 400mm f/2.8 L IS III though, it’s a different story. Focus is much faster than I have ever seen with any other Canon lens when using the 2x. Not just fast, but deadly accurate, too. And that’s important with an 800mm focal length because wide open, you have a razor thin plane of focus.

The only thing I did notice here was that it does benefit from being stopped down 1/3 of a stop to f/6.3. Shots are very sharp at f/5.6, and totally acceptable, but there is an improvement to be seen by stopping down. Honestly, clients would never notice it, but it’s there if you peep really closely.

The Bad

You might be thinking I’m going to list the price as a bad point, but actually I’m not. I think the price of Canon’s super telephoto lenses is justified, and they hold their value well on the second-hand market. For example, I recently wrote about how a $12,000 lens only ended up costing me $400 after buying it new and using it for many years. So yeah, the 400mm f/2.8 L IS III is expensive at $12,000, but it’s worth it.

The only real negative I can come up with is the wide-open vignetting, and to be honest I’m clutching at straws here. I never even felt it needed to be corrected in any of these sample images on this page, so that shows you how little of a concern this really is. But I had to try and come up with something…

Worth Upgrading?

If you have the Mark II version of this lens you might be asking yourself if it’s worth upgrading to the III. Personally I think it probably is, if you are using this lens to make income for your business. The weight saving makes it easier to use, easier to travel with and easier to get sharp shots in low light. I know for a fact that I got some shots of these foxes that I would not have got with the Mark II version.

With the Mark II I would have felt it necessary to use a tripod, whereas with the Mark III I was happy to lie on the ground under a camouflage cover for several hours with no lens support. When the foxes and their kits were running all around me I could quickly change my angle and position in a way that simply would not have been possible had the lens been on a tripod. With this lens I could react as fast as I wanted to, and it put the biggest smile on my face!

The weight saving will also likely mean that you are inclined to take the lens with you more than you would with heavier, older versions. Right there, that reason means you’ll get more for your money. No point having an expensive lens in your close that doesn’t get used at every opportunity.

And lastly, I have to say that the AF speed improvement with the 2x extender is a real bonus. The 1.4x extenders have always worked well, but the 2x extender on this lens makes a fabulous hand-holdable 800mm f/5.6 lens. It’s worth noting, though, that this lens is only compatible with the Mark III Canon extenders.

About The Author

Founder of Shutter Muse, full time photographer and creative educator. Dan lives in Whistler, BC, Canada but his wanderlust often sends him in search of images all around the world to meet the needs of clients and readers alike.

5 Comments

Mac on July 9, 2019 at 5:21 pm

Great review, Dan. I’m a Nikon shooter but have always recognized how great Canon’s lenses are. Sounds like this one is no exception. Off topic question: Have you switched to the Canon full frame mirrorless yet? Thanks!

Thanks Mac. Yeah as I’ve always said, you go with Canon if you want the best lenses, and Nikon of you want the best cameras. I guess these days I would throw Sony in the middle somewhere. They are making some great lenses and some mediocre ones. And the same with their cameras.

To answer your other question… not quite. I bought an EOS RP but purely so that I had a test body to try out the new RF lenses. Canon don’t really have a pro EOS-R body that suits my work just yet, but it’ll come. For now I use the RP as a backup, and a test platform. The new RF lenses are very nice, and I think within one year Canon will have a very compelling lineup, but at the moment they are behind Sony and Nikon until they release some better bodies and actually ship the RF 70-200, RF 15-35 and RF 24-70.

All that said, I’m borrowing a Sony A9 this month and the GM 100-400 to put that through its paces. Those two are far from mediocre as far as I could tell the first time I tried them. Canon doesn’t necessarily have me locked in…

Very helpful review! Are you able to comment on the choice between the 400mm f/2.8iii vs 600mm f/4iii? Fitting one in the budget is tough, both is not feasible. So if you had to pick one, which one would it be? They are actually almost the same weight, but there is a big difference in length – 13.5″ vs 17.6″. The extra 4″ on the 600mm will make it harder to fit in bags and generally move around. But shooting smaller animals (birds) from far away, or larger animals from even father away (bears) seems to favor the reach advantage of the 600mm over the 1-stop advantage of the 400mm.

Thanks for putting out these test images Dan. From all my experience with seeing images from the new version II and version III 600 and 400, I was actually tremendously let down with their image quality. I’m going to keep looking at more samples since I didn’t buy either yet because of this. Particularly the 600 is worse optically but a significant amount, ( so much so that the weight saving means nothing to me). I can’t believe Canon would do this.

On the point of the new 600 III being softer than the version II, I would agree that it’s disappointing to see Bryan’s test results on that over at TDP. With regards to the IQ of the 400 III though, I have to disagree. The 400 III is a stunning lens. I note that you say looking at “samples” which suggests you have not actually used them yourself. I would definitely recommend doing so because if the samples you are looking at have lead you to conclude that the 400 III is a tremendous let down, you are certainly looking at bad examples!! To me it behaves exactly as a $12,000 lens should, and it’s better than the version II which was already celebrated as one of Canon’s best.

Your email address will not be published or shared. Please note that if you include a link in your comment, it will have to be moderated first before it appears on the site. Required fields are marked*

COMMENT

By submitting a comment this form also collects your name, email and IP address so that we can prevent spam. For more info check our privacy policy.

Name *

Email *

Website

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Don't Miss Out

Join thousands of other photographers who get free photography tips and resources delivered every month.